My take on some new Canon lenses

[rpcrowe]

After being surprised that Canon did not include IS with the new 24-70mm f/2.8L lens I was shocked to see them release a 24-70mm f/4L IS lens. That kind of seems like putting a Toyota engine in a Ferrari. However, the camera at which the lens is aimed (6D) is a watered down model itself so a watered down lens might be a good match.

Is this deja vu as with Canon offering a watered down 50mm f/1.8 Mark-ii lens to match the cheapie price of the Canon Rebel film cameras?

I havent looked at the specs because I don't really need a lens of this focal length but, it seems to me that either adding IS to the 24-70mm f/2.8L or improving the wide angle IQ of the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens would have been the way to go.

However, on a full frame camera, the 24-70mm f/4L IS might just be a good match with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. On my 1.6x cameras, I prefer the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as my mid-range zoom lens.

Also after being totally underwhelmed by recently issued Canon lenses (40mm f/2.8 IS, 24mm f/2.8 IS and 28mm f/2.8 IS) I was really intrigued by the recently issued 35mm f/2 IS lens. But, after seeing the $850 price for a non-L lens, my interest was suddenly and permanently abated. It would, however be quite a decent lens for a photojournalist.

[Scott Stephen]

But Richard:
You somehow missed the REALLY big Canon product release announcement today? (Hint: NEW LENS CAPS!!)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=3337

[Glenn NK]

Richard:

Perhaps part of Canon's reasoning is that an f/4 lens needs some help - and IS does help.

But considering the fact that so many photographers on so many forums are puzzling over the offerings, I'm going to put their (Canon's) decisions down to being made by marketing types who don't actually use a camera.

Just because so many great cameras come from Japan doesn't mean that all Japanese people are photographers. In the same vein, there are actually Canadians that have never experienced actual winter with cold temperatures. And I quickly learned how to do that when I moved here.

Glenn

I just read Scott's post. Good grief.

I have used this type of lens cap, and frankly I don't like them (I'm a piano player and have pretty good fingers).

[Scott Stephen]

But seriously, I agree with everything you said. The 2.8 version just cried out for IS. The EF-S 17-55 near-equivalent for crops has IS. Even the new Tamron 2.8 has IS.

And yes, the 24, 28 and 40 primes underwhelmed, unless you are someone trying to shoot pro video on an SLR.

Maybe the new 35mm f/2 will be a great lens. That really did need to be updated. Perhaps it will be subject to a constantly repeated $200.00 rebate.

Would like to see the next refresh on 50mm, though I'll bet it will be a $2,000 f/1.2 L lens, and not a reasonably-priced improvement to the f/1.4.

[William W]

The (upcoming) release of the 35F/2 IS means that anyone thinking of the 35/2 – should buy it sooner rather that later. . . or put the $850 toward a 35/1.4.

I waited ‘til the very last for the EF24 to 70/2.8 and I think I nabbed the last, new copy in existence . . . I drove the dealer mad.

Not sure that I’d rush out and buy the 24 to 70/4 IS – not when the 24 to 105/4 IS is still an option – I’ve only glossed over the specs etc, but the 24 to 70/4 IS is hybrid IS – and has a ‘nice’ macro function – I think I would rather have the extra reach, on an F4 standard zoom.

***

Canon TR&D apparently do believe that (fast) IS Primes across the range will be more sought after Lenses than fast IS Zooms . . .

Surely NOT Colin's theory . . . I'd guess.

WW

[Polar01]

I do not use Canon, but I feel the same way about the lens for my Nikon, who wants to carry around a big old heavy 24-70mm f2.8, just get a excellent wide angle, a good 50mm f1.8, then something to give you reach. I shoot landscapes mostly so the 24-70mm is useless to me, if I wanted a walking around lens I could get the 24-300mm 3.5-5.6 which would cover off also the 70-200mm f2.8 and save $3,100.00 instead I use my 50mm 1.8D as my walk aroung lens. In my world and it is my world I have no need what so ever for a mid range zoom, if I need something mid range I use a 105mm F2.8 which will stop down to F32, I really think that I mid range zooms are going bye, bye so why invest in upgrading them from the manufacturing side with all those costs to make a few people happy.

Cheers:

Allan

[Colin Southern]

Hard to know what they're thinking - but - having just said that, I "suspect" that Canon aren't stupid -- so perhaps we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if they're not products we would buy.

Do Nikon have a 24-80/2.8 IS?

[Manfred M]

I do not use Canon, but I feel the same way about the lens for my Nikon, who wants to carry around a big old heavy 24-70mm f2.8, just get a excellent wide angle, a good 50mm f1.8, then something to give you reach. I shoot landscapes mostly so the 24-70mm is useless to me, if I wanted a walking around lens I could get the 24-300mm 3.5-5.6 which would cover off also the 70-200mm f2.8 and save $3,100.00 instead I use my 50mm 1.8D as my walk aroung lens. In my world and it is my world I have no need what so ever for a mid range zoom, if I need something mid range I use a 105mm F2.8 which will stop down to F32, I really think that I mid range zooms are going bye, bye so why invest in upgrading them from the manufacturing side with all those costs to make a few people happy.

Cheers:

Allan

The wedding and portrait photographers I know all shoot the f/2.8 24-70mm. The portrait photographers use it for group shots and it is the wedding photographers "go to" lens. I probably do at least half of my shots with it as a general walk around lens, although I do switch to the 50mm a fair bit for street photography.

Hard to know what they're thinking - but - having just said that, I "suspect" that Canon aren't stupid -- so perhaps we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if they're not products we would buy.

Do Nikon have a 24-80/2.8 IS?

No Colin - the fast pro mid-range zoom is the f/2.8 24-70mm and just like the Canon, it is not stabilized. They have just come out with another mid-range zoom, the f/3.5-4.5 24-85mm stabilized lens.

[Polar01]

Manfred there you go it is a lens that is used by the wedding and portrait photographers it fits what they need to do their jobs, as for the rest of us, in my opinion it is a waste of money, if you have one or get it at a great deal it can make a addition. With your D800 you could take a shot with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 and increase and crop the image to get the size of image you require if you desired, or did not already have the 24-70mm 2.8 and did not want to out upwards of $2000.00 with taxes. From the design side Nikon and or Canon looks at it this way, we have a great lens here that people still buy lots of so why go to all that cost of redesigning something that ain't broke, it has more than paided for itself and is a money cow that is milked and milked over and over again.

Cheers:

Allan

[Glenn NK]

Hard to know what they're thinking - but - having just said that, I "suspect" that Canon aren't stupid -- so perhaps we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, even if they're not products we would buy.

Do Nikon have a 24-80/2.8 IS?

I'm thinking back a year or so ago - when Canon introduced the 70-300 L IS lens. So many people said, "I didn't want this lens". For some reason many people must have wanted it because quite a few bought it.

Glenn

[Glenn NK]

who wants to carry around a big old heavy 24-70mm f2.8, just get a excellent wide angle, a good 50mm f1.8, then something to give you reach. I shoot landscapes mostly so the 24-70mm is useless to me, if I wanted a walking around lens I could get the 24-300mm 3.5-5.6 which would cover off also the 70-200mm f2.8 and save $3,100.00 instead I use my 50mm 1.8D as my walk around lens. In my world and it is my world I have no need what so ever for a mid range zoom, if I need something mid range I use a 105mm F2.8 which will stop down to F32, I really think that I mid range zooms are going bye, bye so why invest in upgrading them from the manufacturing side with all those costs to make a few people happy.

Cheers:

Allan

I would love a big heavy IS 24-70 that had excellent IQ and didn't distort at both ends.

Lately I've been using a much heavier 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens - and with a 2.0 extender too!!

Ever notice how some otherwise really good sunsets don't cover enough of the sky to use a 24 mm lens? Well the 70-200 plus extender has come to the rescue - talk about heavy.

Glenn

[AB26]

Hi Richard,

Maybe Canon want their users to learn how to use Canon tripods.

Seriously, do you need IS on an F2.8 70mm lens???

[Colin Southern]

No Colin - the fast pro mid-range zoom is the f/2.8 24-70mm and just like the Canon, it is not stabilized. They have just come out with another mid-range zoom, the f/3.5-4.5 24-85mm stabilized lens.

How interesting ... the two biggest players both don't have a 24-80 2.8IS. If it were as advantageous as folks think the you'd think that one or the other would have come up with one. Perhaps it's a technical issue?

[Ady]

I'm thinking back a year or so ago - when Canon introduced the 70-300 L IS lens. So many people said, "I didn't want this lens". For some reason many people must have wanted it because quite a few bought it.
Glenn

I didn't see the 70-300 IS L and think 'I must get one of those!' but it has become one of my most used lenses.

I initially looked at it as an alternative for when weather conditions rule out the 100-400 L IS. The 100-400 isn't sealed at all while the 70-300 has seen me through some truly horrendous shoots in terms of weather. The shorter length compared to the 100-400 is a bit of a pain at times but the extra length over the 70-200 is very welcome. The smaller max aperture when compared to the 70-200 2.8 hasn't been an issue for me either as on the whole I tend to shoot f8 to f11 with this lens.

Cheers,
A

[herbert]

I think this announcement should be taken in context of recent history.

Canon previously announced 24 and 28mm f2.8 IS lenses as replacements for old non-IS equivalents. They updated using newer technology such as lens coatings, autofocus motor (USM) and autofocus chip (which helps control focussing). From the reviews it seems the lenses have good (24mm) and great (28mm) image quality. Better than the old ones. So the announcement of the 35mm f2 IS is a natural progression up through the range of the dated EF lenses. The next thing to expect would be updates to the 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2 (all of which are over 18 years old).

Unfortunately the new lenses have a massive increase in price. They are not weather sealed and so not fit for the L designation. But in all other measures they can be considered close to L quality. Hence the big price jump. So it seems that Canon is stating that in order to get better quality lenses you have to pay more. Then it forces the issue by stopping production of the old lenses. So you are left with a few choices if you want that type of prime lens: pay more, buy the old version second hand, switch to a different camera brand for the lens (Sigma/Zeiss) or the camera and lens.

I agree that the 24-70 f4 IS does not make sense in the current line-up. There is already a 24-105 f4 IS. However Canon does have the advantage of knowing what lenses it is currently working on for the next few years. So it may make more sense in a few years. Here are a few ideas:

1. The image quality is better. The MTF charts do not appear to show a big difference this but then Canon uses theoretical MTF charts. It could be the case given that it is a 3x zoom and not a 4x zoom so optically less demanding to design. There could be improvements to distortion, field curvature and chromatic aberrations. These do not show on MTF charts. We should wait for some actual tests to see if this is true.

2. They will phase out the 24-105. The new 24-70 f4 will become the replacement. The loss of extra focal length will force people to buy more lenses. Canon has lots in the 70+mm zoom range. Canon likes selling lenses since they are more profitable than the loss-leader camera bodies (although Canon's pricing seems to be based around the whatever-we-can-get-away-with strategy).

3. The street price will be much lower (maybe when they have no more 24-105 lenses left). Or the lens will be competitively packaged as a kit lens. However given that the price of the 6D plus 24-70 f4 is ($2100+$1500=$3600) and the Nikon D600 + 24-85mm kit is $2700 it does not appear competitive right now.

4. The macro capability is a unique feature. A magnification of 0.7x is much higher than the other general purpose zooms (24-105 = 0.23x, 24-70 f2.8 II = 0.21x). However the working distance to sensor at this magnification is 20cm. Accounting for the lens the subject will be 3-4cm away. So lighting the subject is going to be very hard. To me this looks more like an emergency macro lens rather than a useful swap for the 100mm f2.8 L ($1049).

All prices in US dollars from B&H photo. Maybe you can find lower but they should be indicative.

In summary I think there is a lot of frustration that photography is expensive. Moreover it is getting more expensive in the Canon world. More frustrating is that competitors appear to have a different model where they add more features and keep the price the same. This is the way new technology usually comes to market (e.g. home computers, mobile phones). However if you read the quarterly profit reports from Canon, Nikon and Sony it is Canon which is performing the best. Only time will tell which strategy is the most successful long term (E.G. sell them cheap, win the market, maybe run out of R&D money verses sell them not-at-a-loss, keep afloat, maybe run out of customers).

My take is that I have to accept new lenses will cost more than I hoped. I will then have to choose more carefully before buying. But I am not selling my Canon gear just yet since it works fine.

Alex

[Manfred M]

Manfred there you go it is a lens that is used by the wedding and portrait photographers it fits what they need to do their jobs, as for the rest of us, in my opinion it is a waste of money, if you have one or get it at a great deal it can make a addition. With your D800 you could take a shot with a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 and increase and crop the image to get the size of image you require if you desired, or did not already have the 24-70mm 2.8 and did not want to out upwards of $2000.00 with taxes. From the design side Nikon and or Canon looks at it this way, we have a great lens here that people still buy lots of so why go to all that cost of redesigning something that ain't broke, it has more than paided for itself and is a money cow that is milked and milked over and over again.

Cheers:

Allan

I guess Alan, the reason that there aren't a lot of mid-range zooms lenses is that most people agree with you. I find that I take about 60% of my shots with it, so it is a lens that works for me, and is well worth the money I paid for it.

[rpcrowe]

But Richard:
You somehow missed the REALLY big Canon product release announcement today? (Hint: NEW LENS CAPS!!)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=3337

OH HECK! This doesn't impact me. I have switched from the inconvenient side-pinch Canon OEM lens caps to the more efficient (and far less expensive) Chinese center pinch caps a long while ago. Center-pinch caps are far easier to use - especially if you have a lens hood attached!

When I purchased a used 300mm f/4L IS lens it was in mint condition except that the lens cap was not working. I priced the OEM caps and realized that I could convert my entire Canon lens battery to use Chinese center pinch caps at less than the price of that OEM cap!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/72mm-Snap-On...item4abe299797

These caps even have the name Canon on them! I wouldn't be shocked to learn that China is where Canon has purchased their new caps that they will be selling at many times this price.

[Hero]

Do Nikon have a 24-80/2.8 IS?

Same as with Cannon, the cheaper 24-85 f3.5-4.5 has VR, but the 24-70 f2.8 doesn't.

How interesting ... the two biggest players both don't have a 24-80 2.8IS. If it were as advantageous as folks think the you'd think that one or the other would have come up with one. Perhaps it's a technical issue?

The Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is with 31.8 oz/902g and a 77mm filter size already quite a bulky lens, think adding VR might make it a bit too heavy and wide for comfy use.

[loosecanon]

I think we often forget that many current lenses do not perform well enough with modern high resolution cameras. Be it the resolution, distortion that can be corrected, focus accuracy &etc. A new generation of lenses are required. Sadly to keep up in the pixel wars it's going to cost more than a new camera.